As a supervisor i would tell the black nurses his request, that they may have to deal with a troublesome dad, then send them out to be professionals and do their jobs. Then I would get a hospital social worker on scene and inform him/her of the situation. Hospitals are equiped and trained to handle stuff like this.

You're comparing the garage sale cottage industry to a hospital... One whose own lawyers were the ones to catch the problem.

How unbelievably stupid you look.

No, I'm pointing out that Federal Law can be just as retarded as your average proggy.

The nurse wasn't sent home. Didn't miss any pay. The employer apologized for any possible offense taken (even though the only real offense anyone could take was from the client.) But apparently your view of Federal Law is that someone should get rich every time an administrative mistake occurs if it happens to somehow brush up against the sacred race cow.

Would you feel the same way if a patient asked for no Male nurses? (hint: it happens all the time)

What is the stupid mistake worth in dollars? No pay was taken from the black nurse, she wasn't sent home and was only reassigned to other duties.

Should this nurse walk away from the hospital with millions of dollars so she will never have to work again?

It has to do with a stupid ass lack of basic common sense mistake committed by the hospital that will likely cost them a ton of money. While I think an apology could/should be enough, it won't happen in the world we live in today.

The world we live in today is a CYA society. If you are in a postition like this hospital is, you have to cover your ass at all times. If you don't your ass is toast. To me it isn't about should the nurse get millions. It's about when this guy made this unlawful request, should the hospital have honored that request, or covered their asses by telling the guy to **** off? This hospital should have known better.

Would you feel the same way if a patient asked for no Male nurses? (hint: it happens all the time)

Holy shlt man. Not meaning to change the subject but this reminds me of when I had my surgery a couple years ago.

I had this female nurse and she was great. Sweet sweet lady. And she was there the first 5 days I was recovering. But they had to put a catheter in me. Now I am the type of guy that would choose death over having to put that in me on a regular basis. But they said there was no choice. And I was flat out freaked out. So what I did was asked for the highest dosage of pain killers they could give me. Then I requested a male nurse put the catheter in, my line of thinking being if a guy had to stick a tube up my peehole, he would be much more sensitive to my situation than a woman. They honored this request, and I was so doped up anyway that I didn't feel a thing. Just being a big baby.

Now my question is, if this female nurse wanted to, could she sue the hospital for gender discrimination?

No, I'm pointing out that Federal Law can be just as retarded as your average proggy.

The nurse wasn't sent home. Didn't miss any pay. The employer apologized for any possible offense taken (even though the only real offense anyone could take was from the client.) But apparently your view of Federal Law is that someone should get rich every time an administrative mistake occurs if it happens to somehow brush up against the sacred race cow.

Would you feel the same way if a patient asked for no Male nurses? (hint: it happens all the time)

Did you even read the BFOQ? Here, I'll edit the big legalese paragraph so you can read it more easily.

[I]t shall not be an unlawful employment practice (That means "it's okay") for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise…

Legally, it is reasonable for a person of a certain gender to request a caregiver of a certain gender. The Playboy mansion doesn't need to hire guys dressed in bunny suits, nor does Hooters need to hire men in tight orange shorts.

Customer preference can "'be taken into account only when it is based on the company's inability to perform the primary function or service it offers,' that is, where sex or sex appeal is itself the dominant service provided."

Also explicitly: While religion, sex, or national origin may be considered a bona fide occupational qualification in narrow contexts, race can never be a BFOQ.

Now, as far as the nurse is concerned, a case can and will be made...IF (big if) it even goes to trial that, particularly if there is any disciplinary action involved with her superiors, that it will create a hostile work environment for the nurse that was affected. As I stated, you've probably never been the reason one of your bosses got disciplined. That case is made all the time in these types of situations, and it's a legitimate concern. Even if her supervisor gets fired, the argument will be made that there may be animosity from fellow employees who liked the boss, hospital executives who want to get even for costing them money...happens all the time, even with the whistleblower laws.

Additionally, if she were to leave the hospital, any potential employer would ask her why, after 15 years of being employed by this hospital, she's all the sudden no longer employed, not to mention we're talking about Flint, MI here...not many places else to go.

And finally, do you really chalk this up to an "administrative mistake"? An administrative mistake is not signing a form correctly. Not training your employees on federal law and its ramifications on your job is negligence, pure and simple.

But whatever, I'm still laughing at your absurd statement that the worst thing to come out of a situation where an employee was discriminated against is that she will get compensated for it.

What happened did you get a little too much sand in your panties today ......... it's ok just remember alcohol is you friend.

Do you really blame baja for calling the person a bigot who said "black on black violence is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about"...THEN started a thread about a black nurse being discriminated against and asking the question "what about the rights of the white supremicist?"

Obviously, this was a ridiculous request being made by a person who lacks tact...Now here's how to do it on the sly ...step 1) black nurse walks in step 2) you go speak to the nursing supervisor/hospital liason that you don't like her "bed manner" 3) hot nurse walks in or 4) repeat step 2............You're welcome.

Do you really blame baja for calling the person a bigot who said "black on black violence is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about"...THEN started a thread about a black nurse being discriminated against and asking the question "what about the rights of the white supremicist?"

I sure don't. I mean, you may not be...you just post like one.

Yup. And I'm waiting for the "but, but, but, I have a lot of black friends" defense.

Is there something wrong with that article? This was excluded by the poster and changes the story entirely.

From the link.

Quote:

"The father was informed that his request could not be granted, and as a result, all nurses remained available to care for his baby," Hurley CEO Melany Gavulic said, according to WJRT. "We appreciate the community's concern and involvement today, as we publicly clarify the facts of this case. The medical center looks forward to a quick and amicable resolution."

Do you really blame baja for calling the person a bigot who said "black on black violence is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about"...THEN started a thread about a black nurse being discriminated against and asking the question "what about the rights of the white supremicist?"

I sure don't. I mean, you may not be...you just post like one.

Fist of all I didn't start that thread, all I said was "if you are going to talk about gun violence, you must be willing to discuss "the elephant in the room" that everyone chooses to ignore. No one wants to talk about those facts because it's politically incorrect. I also stated it should be up to the blacks to take steps to solve that problem on their own in the communities where the violence is a way of life. The same communities that you wouldn't take your family on a drive through. You choose to ignore the elephant and bush it off as a socioeconomic problem.

Every citizen has rights and whether you agree or not that includes a "white supremist" or a "black gang-banger". Go back and look at the "Ruby Ridge" fiasco when the rights of a so-called "white supremist" were trampled on by the U.S. government. They killed his wife, 14-year-old son and even his dog all because he sawed off the barrel of a 12-gauge shotgun and sold it to an undercover FBI agent.

Fist of all I didn't start that thread, all I said was "if you are going to talk about gun violence, you must be willing to discuss "the elephant in the room" that everyone chooses to ignore. No one wants to talk about those facts because it's politically incorrect. I also stated it should be up to the blacks to take steps to solve that problem on their own in the communities where the violence is a way of life. The same communities that you wouldn't take your family on a drive through. You choose to ignore the elephant and bush it off as a socioeconomic problem.

Every citizen has rights and whether you agree or not that includes a "white supremist" or a "black gang-banger". Go back and look at the "Ruby Ridge" fiasco when the rights of a so-called "white supremist" were trampled on by the U.S. government. They killed his wife, 14-year-old son and even his dog all because he sawed off the barrel of a 12-gauge shotgun and sold it to an undercover FBI agent.

.

BTW I agree with you that Black on Black violence is a very real issue, nobody could deny that but tell me if it is not a socioeconomic problem what the underling issue that is the problem.

BTW I agree with you that Black on Black violence is a very real issue, nobody could deny that but tell me if it is not a socioeconomic problem what the underling issue that is the problem.

I don't think it's a socioeconomic problem that would disappear if the economic conditions of the inner city suddenly became better. The high rolling gangster types with all the money, cars and bling still make gun possession as a priority in life. Look at all the NFL players that have problems related to firearms and it's not due to a socioeconomic problem.

Black on Black violence is something that needs to be taken head on by the black community itself and passing new gun laws for the rest of the nation is not the answer.

I don't think it's a socioeconomic problem that would disappear if the economic conditions of the inner city suddenly became better. The high rolling gangster types with all the money, cars and bling still make gun possession as a priority in life. Look at all the NFL players that have problems related to firearms and it's not due to a socioeconomic problem.

You clearly don't even have a rudimentary understanding of what a "socioeconomic problem" is. The gangster/money/car/bling/gun culture you mention exists precisely because of socioeconomic issues! Those are the guys that have, or are perceived to have, the power and money amongst the powerless and moneyless. You just really don't have a clue here, although I do agree that the problems wouldn't "disappear" overnight.

You clearly don't even have a rudimentary understanding of what a "socioeconomic problem" is. The gangster/money/car/bling/gun culture you mention exists precisely because of socioeconomic issues! Those are the guys that have, or are perceived to have, the power and money amongst the powerless and moneyless. You just really don't have a clue here, although I do agree that the problems wouldn't "disappear" overnight.

No I don't think you understand, do think if manufacturing and industry are brought back to the inner cities anything will change? The population that existed in the inner city that depended on the manufacturing industry all moved out to the suburbs. The lawless people that exist there filled the void and they need to be disarmed by their own citizens not by rest of the country.